The Limits of Clarity, and Benefits of Ambiguity

Opinion

By Allan Gerson

Published December 29, 2010, issue of January 07, 2011.
  • Print
  • Share Share

It has been nearly two years since the Obama administration set out to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, yet virtually no progress has been made. One thing, however, that the process has not lacked is clarity. Americans, Israelis and Palestinians have been very clear in articulating their demands. Yet this very clarity has often turned out to be an obstacle to progress.

If the parties want to move the process forward toward its intended conclusion (i.e., a peace accord), they would do well to rediscover the virtues of creative ambiguity. Throughout history, many a diplomatic debacle was averted by some old-fashioned fudging of the issues — whereby the parties could each walk away and say that they had won the day. After all, as in personal relations, face-saving and climbing down gracefully is a key element of diplomacy.

Yet in the Israeli-Palestinian arena, the virtues of creative ambiguity appear to have been all but forgotten. Instead, the parties seem hell-bent on forcing each other into one box or another. The result is that all those involved have needlessly painted themselves into corners from which they cannot easily escape.

We saw this tendency in the Obama administration’s clarion insistence on an overall settlement freeze. The only dividends from that push are that the Palestinians dug in their heels on the settlement issue and demanded a complete construction freeze as a precondition for resuming negotiations. Instead of helping the parties hammer out a peace agreement, the Obama administration wasted many months trying to get Israel to agree to a settlement freeze (which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finally did, for 10 months, at the expense of significant political capital), haggling over the freeze’s terms and duration, and trying to convince the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table.

The Obama administration made matters even worse with its approach to housing construction in East Jerusalem. Early on, the Obama administration wanted East Jerusalem to be included in any settlement freeze. But Israel was not about to capitulate on Jerusalem — indeed, Netanyahu could not afford to do so politically. The implication of the Obama administration’s position is that East Jerusalem is simply another occupied territory, a stance Netanyahu firmly rejected when he stated that “Jerusalem is not a settlement.” (Contrast the Obama administration’s approach to Jerusalem with that of the Reagan administration, which vetoed a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions that sought to equate Jerusalem with occupied territory.)

The Obama administration’s pursuit of clarity without regard to the political realities on the ground in Israel has had embarrassing results. The administration has been forced to gradually back down from its own clear demands upon learning that they were unrealistic.

The Americans, however, are not the only ones making unrealistic public demands. For instance, the Netanyahu government insists — as no other Israeli government has ever done — that the Palestinians explicitly recognize Israel as a Jewish state. But Palestinian leaders have flatly refused to do so, and any such declaration would likely spark an enormous backlash from the Palestinian public.

So why beseech the Palestinians to bestow their blessings on the reality of Israel’s Jewishness? Israeli officials who support this demand would say that such a statement would provide the best measure of the Palestinians’ true acceptance of Israel. Well, good luck. True acceptance is not something that comes from a statement of goodwill. Israel’s strength is the best guarantor of its acceptance, not declarations from its adversaries, no matter how clearly worded.

In unrealistically insisting that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Netanyahu is painting himself into a corner. His clarity on this issue may limit his own political maneuvering room when it comes time to work out creative language that will be acceptable to both parties in any final agreement.

Clarity, of course, has its uses. But successful diplomacy means knowing when to be clear and when to be less than clear. Sometimes it takes a little bit of ambiguity to create the political breathing room necessary for getting beyond words and making real progress.

Allan Gerson served during the Reagan administration as a senior counsel to American delegation to the United Nations and as a deputy assistant attorney general.


The Jewish Daily Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Jewish Daily Forwardrequires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and The Jewish Daily Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.





Find us on Facebook!
  • "I am wrapping up the summer with a beach vacation with my non-Jewish in-laws. They’re good people and real leftists who try to live the values they preach. This was a quality I admired, until the latest war in Gaza. Now they are adamant that American Jews need to take more responsibility for the deaths in Gaza. They are educated people who understand the political complexity, but I don’t think they get the emotional complexity of being an American Jew who is capable of criticizing Israel but still feels a deep connection to it. How can I get this across to them?"
  • “'I made a new friend,' my son told his grandfather later that day. 'I don’t know her name, but she was very nice. We met on the bus.' Welcome to Israel."
  • A Jewish female sword swallower. It's as cool as it sounds (and looks)!
  • Why did David Menachem Gordon join the IDF? In his own words: "The Israel Defense Forces is an army that fights for her nation’s survival and the absence of its warriors equals destruction from numerous regional foes. America is not quite under the threat of total annihilation… Simply put, I felt I was needed more in Israel than in the United States."
  • Leonard Fein's most enduring legacy may be his rejection of dualism: the idea that Jews must choose between assertiveness and compassion, between tribalism and universalism. Steven M. Cohen remembers a great Jewish progressive:
  • BREAKING: Missing lone soldier David Menachem Gordon has been found dead in central Israel. The Ohio native was 21 years old.
  • “They think they can slap on an Amish hat and a long black robe, and they’ve created a Hasid." What do you think of Hollywood's portrayal of Hasidic Jews?
  • “I’ve been doing this since I was a teenager. I didn’t think I would have to do it when I was 90.” Hedy Epstein fled Nazi Germany in 1933 on a Kinderstransport.
  • "A few decades ago, it would have been easy to add Jews to that list of disempowered victims. I could throw in Leo Frank, the victim of mob justice; or otherwise privileged Jewish men denied entrance to elite universities. These days, however, we have to search a lot harder." Are you worried about what's going in on #Ferguson?
  • Will you accept the challenge?
  • In the six years since Dothan launched its relocation program, 8 families have made the jump — but will they stay? We went there to find out:
  • "Jewish Israelis and West Bank Palestinians are witnessing — and living — two very different wars." Naomi Zeveloff's first on-the-ground dispatch from Israel:
  • This deserves a whistle: Lauren Bacall's stylish wardrobe is getting its own museum exhibit at Fashion Institute of Technology.
  • How do you make people laugh when they're fighting on the front lines or ducking bombs?
  • "Hamas and others have dredged up passages form the Quran that demonize Jews horribly. Some imams rail about international Jewish conspiracies. But they’d have a much smaller audience for their ravings if Israel could find a way to lower the flames in the conflict." Do you agree with J.J. Goldberg?
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.